Greenhouse MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: pagination defaults ('Default returns one page of 500'), auto-fetch capability ('Use paginate="all" to get the complete dataset automatically'), and filter types (email exact, candidate_ids list, date ranges). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, but covers the core operational behavior well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by pagination guidance, filter details, and sibling tool alternatives. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose statement, pagination behavior, filter specifications, and usage boundaries. The information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides good coverage. It explains the core functionality, pagination behavior, filter types, and sibling tool boundaries. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation. The main gap is not covering all 9 parameters individually, but the description compensates well for the 0% schema coverage with filter semantics and pagination guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description must compensate. It adds significant value by explaining filter semantics: 'Filters: email (exact), candidate_ids (list), created/updated date ranges (ISO).' It also clarifies the paginate parameter's special value 'all' for auto-fetching. While it doesn't cover all 9 parameters explicitly, it provides crucial context for the most important ones.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List candidates with optional filters.' It specifies the resource (candidates) and action (list) with filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for name search (search_candidates_by_name) and resume reading (read_candidate_resume), showing clear differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states 'For name search, use search_candidates_by_name instead' and 'For reading a candidate's resume, use read_candidate_resume.' It also provides guidance on pagination behavior ('Set paginate="all" to auto-fetch every page'), giving clear context for usage decisions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.